At least we can agree on that!
At least teach people how to calculate interest on a loan.
The old rules don't apply. We used to think the rule of '78 was a rip-off. That's like nothing compared with what's being allowed today.
Posted on 12/24/2013 1:45:23 PM PST by Errant
The Democratic Party gained prominence in the first half of the nineteenth century as being the party that opposed the Second Bank of the United States. In the process, it tapped into an anti-state sentiment that proved so strong that we wouldn't see another like it until the next century.
Its adversaries were Whig politicians who defended the bank and its ability to grow the government and their own personal fortunes at the same time. They were, in fact, quite open about these arrangements. It was considered standard-operating procedure for Whig representatives to receive monetary compensation for their support of the Bank when leaving Congress. The Whig Daniel Webster even expected annual payments while in Congress. Once he complained to the Bank of the United States President Nicholas Biddle, “I believe my retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual. If it be wished that my relation to the Bank should be continued, it may be well to send me my usual retainer.”
(Excerpt) Read more at marketoracle.co.uk ...
Of course the nation I would choose would be the happiest, most prosperous one since they embrace those ten core beliefs I just listed, so I guess there would still be a lot of jealousy from the people who chose the others. :^)
******************************
I think we'd do very well living in the same country. :)
OK, I keep an average of $1000 in my checking account from earnings from a steel-toed-shoe type of job. At the end of the year my $1000 worth of labor is only going to benefit me $970 due to inflation. That labor is out there, it provided work, that extra $30 worth of labor is in the system being passed from hand to hand as people pay their bills. Who got that $30? Not the people who are working to pass along that extra $30 worth of labor to pay their bills, they're also working and losing 3% as they go. The people that created the extra currency in the system to devalue my payment for my labor, that's who's getting it. They're the ones not doing work for their money. They don't mow yards, they don't do anything but create fiat currency so that it will inflate and they can make money off that inflation and collect interest, whether it be loans or bonds.
They both pay interest. They're both either a loan or type of loan.
Oh, thanks. :^) Yeah, some of those would make me hated on this site by a lot of people. lol That's the thing about conservatives, most of us have strong disagreements with each other on issues. Not so with liberals, they pretty much march lock-step with each other on everything.
That's easy, a bank loan is something a bank lends out that it doesn't own, a bond is something the government sells that it doesn't own.
What could go wrong?!
The Fed didn't get it either. If someone borrowed your $1000, and paid you back in these new, less valuable dollars, they got your $30.
The people that created the extra currency in the system to devalue my payment for my labor, that's who's getting it.
In that case, anyone who borrowed, increasing the money supply, devalued your $1000.
Of course a bank owns the money they lend out.
a bond is something the government sells that it doesn't own.
The government doesn't own Treasury Bonds before they're sold? Then who owns them?
No they don't, the depositors own the money. The banksters just loan it out up to 90% when they aren't looking.
The government doesn't own Treasury Bonds before they're sold? Then who owns them?
Bonds represent future fruits of the populace (.e., Bond Servants), collected by force or threat thereof at some future debt.
:)
No they don't, the depositors own the money.
If you deposit ten $20s into the bank, you now own an account of $200. The bank now owns the $20s and can lend out $180, assuming a reserve requirement of 10%.
If the bank owns the $20s, why do they give 'em back when a depositor demands?
If the bank owns the $20s, why do they give 'em back when a depositor demands?
If you wish to exchange your asset, the account balance, for the bank's asset, $20s, you are free to do so.
You see, when you deposit cash, the bank's assets (cash) increase and the bank's liabilities (your account balance) also increase.
Of course that would be the case, because the bank doesn't really own the asset, the depositor does as witnessed by his ability to redraw the funds at anytime he or she chooses.
"a customer can deposit or withdraw any amount of money any number of times, subject to availability of funds."
The banksters are ripping depositors off by using their assets at pennies on the dollar to then rip off the poor and desperate at ten times the current interest rate via credit cards, and worse via payday loans and etc. And even worse still, it's all subsidized by a taxpayer funded insurance agency called the FDIC!
Worse still, the too big to fails have been doing little more than gambling with their client's assets at rigged markets knowing the taxpayers have and will bail their butts out.
Meanwhile, we have a situation like the link below describes happening in this country all of which the Fed has helped to enable.
"The Biggest Redistribution Of Wealth From The Middle Class And Poor To The Rich Ever" Explained...
IIRC, there is about $1T of outstanding consumer loans (CC debit) in this country alone?
Of course that would be the case, because the bank doesn't really own the asset,
When you deposit the cash, you no longer own it.
The banksters are ripping depositors off by using their assets at pennies on the dollar to then rip off the poor and desperate at ten times the current interest rate via credit cards, and worse via payday loans and etc.
That's awful! I forgot that you were forced to deposit and borrow against your will.
Worse still, the too big to fails have been doing little more than gambling with their client's assets at rigged markets knowing the taxpayers have and will bail their butts out.
How'd that work for Wamu and Wachovia?
"The Biggest Redistribution Of Wealth From The Middle Class And Poor To The Rich Ever" Explained...
Tyler's funny. Took one too many shots to the head.
It's a shame no one in the middle class bothered to refinance at the lowest rates in 60 years. Not to mention investing in the market since the crash.
That is a typical bankster attitude. Meanwhile, the poor and desperate who know little about finance or managing money, much less high finance, are reduced to putting up their assets (e.g., automobile) for let's say as an example, a $1,000 loan. For the use of that money, it costs them $90 a month! At anytime, if they wish to pay off the loan and reclaim their title, it will still cost them $1,200. That's were our wonderful banking industry has taken this country. Banksters have become loan sharks and the Fed is and never was anything more than a bagman go between for government and banksters. And don't even get me started about the student loan rip-off going on now.
What a disaster this has all become, thanks to your wonderful and enabling central bank...
Thanks, much higher than I thought, but still not enough to run the federal government for a year.
That is a typical bankster attitude.
It's a bankster attitude that you should borrow when rates are low?
Meanwhile, the poor and desperate who know little about finance or managing money, much less high finance, are reduced to putting up their assets (e.g., automobile) for let's say as an example, a $1,000 loan.
Being bad at math has always been expensive.
What a disaster this has all become, thanks to your wonderful and enabling central bank...
I blame our public schools. They should make economics mandatory. At least teach people how to calculate interest on a loan.
At least we can agree on that!
At least teach people how to calculate interest on a loan.
The old rules don't apply. We used to think the rule of '78 was a rip-off. That's like nothing compared with what's being allowed today.
No, because the Fed buys debt instruments that surpass inflation. Every year they can buy 3% more than the year before. The person that borrowed the money has to pay more than inflation or else the bank wouldn't lend it in the first place
In that case, anyone who borrowed, increasing the money supply, devalued your $1000.
They paid back more than inflation. No, it's not them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.